Skip to main content

This was a stunner.  

With all the hoopla about how America desperately needs to become "Energy Independent" -- and SO the "urgent need" to Drill off OUR Shorelines -- well it turns out, all that Drilling and Spilling, is just for Barrels of Oil, destined for resale on the World Markets!

Turns out -- "Our" Gulf Oil is just another "fungible global commodity"!

Huh, what?  Fungy-what?   Does that mean it's "more fun"?

No.  Fungible simply means something is "interchangeable".  That One unit of something (like a barrel of Oil) is worth just as much as any other Unit of that same something.  One Ounce of Gold, is exchangeable with any other Ounce of Gold.

Or as Chris Hayes succinctly put it:

There's NO barrels marked somewhere, "Foreign."

Say What?  I thought we were risking our precious Ecosystems, to "free ourselves" from the need of Foreign Oil -- to increase our "Domestic Reserves"?

If British Petroleum, can pump it and dump it, on the Global Marketplace, where one Barrel of Oil is identical to every other Barrel (assuming no disastrous spills of course) --

Then what the Hell is the Point?

I was listening to K.O. as background wallpaper, while busying myself with blogging and such -- when this stunning conversation JUMPED right off of the screen!  I had heard about Fungibility before, but now it was being drawn in the stark black and white context, of the pending Gulf Coast disaster ...

So for your further wonderment and elucidation, I present that, stunning Political News segment, definitely worth thinking about:

Keith Olbermann and Chris Hayes, editor of The Nation, discuss the Politics of the Gulf Oil Spill.
Monday May 3, 2010  

Link to MSNBC Video

The entire clip is good, but the cut that made me take notice
was the Segment 6:40 - 7:10

Here is that Transcript:

OLBERMANN: The arguments also, speaking from the right, that the "drill baby drillers," like half-Governor Palin, that domestic drilling remains crucial to energy independence, the oil that was--that's coming out very successfully right now, unfortunately, not into anybody's coffers but the B.P. oil and other companies in the Gulf and elsewhere, this is not--when it is not spilled and destroys ecology, it does not automatically go into the U.S. and does not automatically go into the domestic reserve.  

It's sold on the open world market like every other --

HAYES:  That's right.

OLBERMANN:  -- barrel of crude that comes up safely out of the desert in -- you know, in Saudi Arabia.  Wouldn't that make that entire "drill, baby, drill" argument, what's left of it after this disaster, sort of hogwash?

HAYES:  Yes.  It has been hogwash from the beginning.


HAYES:  I mean, it's been incredibly frustrating.  And you just said this very well and we should repeat it a million times, and spend an hour talking about it because it's really important.  It's a fungible global commodity.  When it comes up out of the ground, it gets sold on international exchanges.  

And so, there is no such thing as reducing our dependence on "foreign" oil.  There's no barrels marked somewhere, "foreign."

What you can do is reduce your dependence on oil.  When you reduce your dependence on oil, that is something you do on the demand side.  It's not something you do on the supply side.  There isn't enough supply to put a dent in the global escalation of prices for oil we're going to see with China and India, increasing demand.

What we can do, is we can make our economy, our transportation much more efficient so we just don't need as much oil.

Like I said -- stunning.

I thought we were risking So Much (with Domestic Drilling) -- because the consequences of not doing so, would just keep us "forever hooked" on Foreign Sources of Oil.   Turns out however, that Addiction is still Addiction. And suppliers are still suppliers -- No matter where that "interchangeable commodity", has been first tapped from the Earth.

We are risking our precious Environmental resources, to keep the economic engines of China and India running.   To keep the Global Oil Corporations, rolling in all those 'Windfall Billions'.  To keep ourselves, still "dependent" on an ever more "obsolete" Energy Source.

Oil Addiction is still Oil Addiction. It's a fungible global commodity

I've often thought Economic Literacy {and Science Literacy}, for the masses, is essential to achieving a true representative, people-driven Democracy. Sometimes you got to fight Fire with Fire.  Fight Econ-Fed speak with more Econ-worker speak.   Effect Supplies, by changing your Demands.

Sadly however, Economic Literacy is NOT a priority in America. Never has been. Probably never will be. Afterall it is easier to grow Fungi, if you keep the crop in the dark, and feed 'em plenty of BS.

fungible  fun·gi·ble  (fŭn'jə-bəl)  

  1. Law.  Returnable or negotiable in kind or by substitution, as a quantity of grain for an equal amount of the same kind of grain.

  2. Interchangeable.

n. Something that is exchangeable or substitutable.

- Biggest US Gulf of Mexico offshore drillers  
March 31, 2010 (Reuters)

Here is a list of the Gulf of Mexico's biggest players and their projects:


BP Plc (BP.L) Thunder Horse, the largest oil and gas platform in the world, 250,000 barrels of oil per day and 200 million cubic feet per day of natural gas
Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) Perdido, 100,000 barrels of oil per day, 200 million cubic feet per day of gas
Chevron Corp (CVX.N) Tahiti, 125,000 barrels a day of oil, 70 million cubic feet per day of gas


Anadarko Petroleum Corp (APC.N) Independence Hub, 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day; Marco Polo, 120,000 barrels a day of oil,
Apache Corp (APA.N) Geauxpher, 91 million cubic feet per day of gas;
BHP Billiton, Australia (BLT.L) Neptune, 50,000 barrels a day of oil

Just another Day of Big Business in America The World.

Originally posted to Digging up those Facts ... for over 8 years. on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:43 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (290+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, Terri, miriam, Mogolori, hester, gogol, mattman, DebtorsPrison, Shockwave, tacet, baffled, hyperstation, OLinda, eeff, Mnemosyne, ThirstyGator, frisco, RFK Lives, SallyCat, object16, Heart of the Rockies, sardonyx, shermanesq, DemInGeorgia, EvieCZ, TheMomCat, bronte17, conchita, parker parrot, mint julep, Cassandra77, MD patriot, vmibran, Aquarius40, Miss Blue, Mber, librarianman, Terre, fumie, ctsteve, splashy, antirove, sele, wader, Texknight, asterlil, tidalwave1, Getreal1246, psnyder, mrkvica, gerrilea, cosette, On The Bus, chickeee, raster44, forrest, Pohjola, dkmich, Oaktown Girl, AllisonInSeattle, zerelda, bobnbob, Hillbilly Dem, Vicky, JayDean, Gowrie Gal, rapala, marina, radarlady, Tinfoil Hat, yuriwho, mjd in florida, arnott, chimene, PsychoSavannah, Superpole, ccasas, Omir the Storyteller, panicbean, eightlivesleft, Brooke In Seattle, reflectionsv37, Pam from Calif, Sara R, jimreyn, where4art, GreyHawk, Kayakbiker, nyseer, Shotput8, EeDan, northanger, sillia, benny05, quiet in NC, Cory Bantic, Alan Arizona, webranding, kathny, xaxnar, redcedar, Debbie in ME, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, cybersaur, emeraldmaiden, ActivistGuy, luckydog, hideinplainsight, blueoasis, tecampbell, Glorfindel, imabluemerkin, tapestry, Doctor Frog, Sagebrush Bob, Preston S, sceptical observer, ER Doc, 5x5, CA Nana, profh, spotDawa, zhimbo, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, blueoregon, kurt, Eikyu Saha, Hedwig, liberaldemdave, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, bigchin, One Pissed Off Liberal, Noor B, lightfoot, bluicebank, goheelsgodems, dotsright, camlbacker, Debs2, DocbytheBay, ColoTim, Nespolo, Matt Z, DWG, aliasalias, newpioneer, RosyFinch, Kentucky Kid, jayden, US Blues, vbdietz, crose, theChild, Uberbah, SeaTurtle, RudiB, Progressive Chick, ImpeachKingBushII, aishmael, GANJA, JayC, mconvente, Scioto, JeffW, flowerfarmer, wyvern, scooter in brooklyn, OleHippieChick, Mr Stagger Lee, theunreasonableHUman, beach babe in fl, Happy Days, Cassandra Waites, happymisanthropy, Jeff Y, mnguy66, mofembot, Seamus D, temptxan, estel, kyril, Ann Marie Brenda, allie123, Executive Odor, Guadalupe59, briefer, ekyprogressive, Diogenes2008, squarewheel, csaw, maggiejean, 1BQ, multilee, bushondrugs, DeepLooker, greengemini, LinSea, Carol in San Antonio, TKLTKL94, worldly1, allep10, kevinpdx, Losty, rubthorn, jfromga, davespicer, deviant24x, porchdog1961, Christy1947, confitesprit, Otherday, patrickz, Obamican08, veracityus, LaughingPlanet, Susan from 29, amk for obama, fidellio, ATFILLINOIS, wbramh, October Koan, calichristi, TKO333, gulfgal98, elginblt, juturna, Kristina40, SunsetMagnolia, roystah, elengul, ericlewis0, washdcnow, soaglow, Its a New Day, quixoto, Eric0125, renbear, Colorado is the Shiznit, mama jo, ozsea1, bluebluelady, sabo33, croyal, AuroraDawn, msmacgyver, freesia, BlueJessamine, We Want Change, QuestionAuthority, asterkitty, ThAnswr, Late Spring, thethinveil, JGMT, boophus, marleycat, Cinnamon Rollover, tier1express, Serious Blogger, whoknu, mali muso, VTCC73, Marihilda, TheRyeChip, Catlady62, blackjackal, Ezekial 23 20, jadt65, DRo, Regina in a Sears Kit House, MichaelNY, Davui, AguyinMI, PrometheusUnbound, left over flower child, lightshine, pantherq, AnonObamaAid, MyLifeInKenya, jacey, wolfie1818, StonyB, FireBird1, Hookah, damfino, AnnieR, draa, misterbluesky

    when this bunch raises the price of a Gallon of Gas again --

    (and they will)

    Guess, what excuse they are going give, this time ???

    and guess who will shrug their shoulders again, and pay it ???

    (and we will)

    Our "Demand" Side of the economic equation, is quite pathetic.

    The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

    by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:43:04 PM PDT

    •  Recommend. (42+ / 0-)

      It will take all our collective energies -- domestically and internationally -- to cut through the bullshit insulating Multinational Oil.  And it will take nothing less to preserve anything resembling planetary ecological balance.

      The KO/Hayes segment, and your diary, help.  Debunking the "domestic/foreign oil" shibboleth is a critical component of our general awakening.

    •  Counterpoint: (12+ / 0-)

      In an emergency, exporting COULD be stopped, thus providing some sense of independence.

      Just playing a little Devil's Advocate.

      I think we should get rid of our dependence on ALL oil.  That would be a worth "Apollo Project" for this century.

      I want battery stations.  I go in, pick up a new battery, swap it out quickly, and on I go.

      -9.63 -6.92
      Fox News - We Distort, You Deride

      by rick on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:17:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How is the batteries' energy produced? (5+ / 0-)

        It could still be charged from an oil- or coal-burning plant. Electricity has to be generated.

        "Maybe life's meaning is not so much found, as it is made." Opus, by Berke Breathed

        by Lisa in Bama on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:36:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Solar, Wind or Wave energy generation (12+ / 0-)

          people say there isn't enough money for large scale Green energy projects. But think about how much money this spill is going to cost the Federal Government along with Local economies.

          Heck, Bloom Box Fuel cells or what not, plenty of choices. And the idea it's not economical is just a bunch of junk. We're gonna spend enough money on this spill to fund dozens of large scale Green energy projects.

          •  You're right - (9+ / 0-)

            all those avenues have to be developed. I just wanted to point out that "picking up a new battery" is not really an alternative to oil-based energy.

            Not only would the money being spent to clean up this mess be enough to produce a lot of green energy, but also the money being spent FIGHTING good regulation would fund r&d projects that might do some good.

            "Maybe life's meaning is not so much found, as it is made." Opus, by Berke Breathed

            by Lisa in Bama on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:49:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Thermal solar (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            seems to be the only viable method of solar energy that could supply a significant portion of our energy needs with current technology.  And it could be done in places like the Sahara which sure could use the employment.  

          •  Agree 100% with this: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jamess, TKO333, QuestionAuthority

            But think about how much money this spill is going to cost the Federal Government along with Local economies.

            Now, add to that the cost of invading and occupying Iraq ($1 trillion and counting?) in order to secure our access to middle eastern oil. Add to that the portion of our overall defense budget that goes to securing oil production and transportation systems.

            Then add to that the cost of treating the millions of Americans (not to mention citizens of other oil-consumimg countries) who suffer respiratory and other illnesses due to ozone pollution and other toxic byproducts of automobile exhaust pollution.

            Just for kicks, how about adding those numbers up for the years since 2000. What do we get? $5 trillion? $10 trillion? I don't know the exact number, but rest assured it's huge. How far toward viable green energy production would this nation be 10 years and $5 trillion later? Probably already completely there!

   we start today... so that by 2020 we are there...or do we just pursue the "same old same old", drilling baby drilling (just to tide us over, you know) and spending hundreds of billions in cleanup and economic losses, invading more countries in oil-producing regions to "spread democracy" (yeah, right), and sending millions more people to hospitals to spend hundreds of billions more dollars being treated for respiratory ailments?

            If you were president, what you recommend? "Drill baby drill" like the last president and, unfortunately, the current one? "Invade, baby, invade"?

            Or would you actually be a leader and do the right thing?

          •  We need to note that natural gas is fungible (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah, jamess

            also and sold as such on the world market, see at end of diary.  People are being sold on the same bogus notion of OUR OWN ENERGY re natural gas as if it stays here and is part of 'our' national wealth.

            Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night.

            by Glorfindel on Wed May 05, 2010 at 06:07:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Another counterpoint: (11+ / 0-)

        There's the perspective that Lisa Margonelli laid out in her New York Times op-ed piece on Saturday.

        Oil, however, is too complicated for simple solutions. Whether this spill turns out to be the result of a freakish accident or a cascade of negligence, the likely political outcome will be a moratorium on offshore drilling. Emotionally, I love this idea. Who wants an oil drill in his park or on his coastline? Who doesn’t want to punish Big Oil on behalf of the birds?

        Moratoriums have a moral problem, though. All oil comes from someone’s backyard, and when we don’t reduce the amount of oil we consume, and refuse to drill at home, we end up getting people to drill for us in Kazakhstan, Angola and Nigeria — places without America’s strong environmental safeguards or the resources to enforce them.

        Until we reduce the dependency on oil, period, we're just outsourcing the environmental catastrophes of our oil addiction elsewhere. For all the horror of this current clusterfuck, the one thing it may finally (please, FSM let it be so!) get the American people to focus on reducing their usage.

        As A. Siegel recommended in his diary yesterday, perhaps the best path to that is committing to a 5% annual reduction in oil use for 15 years (the wonders of compound interest!) to finally break the addiction. Reducing by just 1/20th our oil Jones on an annual basis could set us on a much better course.

        "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane." -- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

        by frisco on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:00:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that was an excellent diary. (3+ / 0-)

          Practical and insightful.

          thanks for the comments frisco

          The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

          by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:25:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Americans are too selfish... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mr Stagger Lee

          too fucking selfish...

          to reduce their consumption of anything unless they are forced, practically at gunpoint.

          It's an entitlement mentality, and it sucks. "We're 'Murkins...we don't do cutting back. That's for wimpy Eurotrash socialists."

          "Ain't no fuckin' treehuggin' owl-luvin' environmentalist bedwetter gonna tell me
          I can't drive my monster truck to the grocery store whenever I want".

          •  Remember First Oil Crisis (1978?) (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            frisco, blue in NC, jamess

            You couldn't keep a Mazda, Toyota, Honda on the showroom floor long enough to bother opening the door to bring it in.  List price plus non-negotiable surcharge and you had your car.

            Yes, we can be brought around, and we will.  In a VERY short time, gas went from $0.50 a gallon to $1.50 a gallon. All we need is the same increase ($2.50 to $7.50) and our problem of consumption will go away VERY FAST.

            Our fucking problem is that the real costs of everything we consume in our pathetic inconsequential attempts at building some fairy tale consumer based happy-land lives are externalized.  Developing nations are our modern day slaves and pay the price for:

            1. Environmental costs of mining and producing raw materials
            2. Labor costs
            3. Social costs of health care, infrastructure, education
            4. Even disposal costs for our post consumer junk are exported.

            Back here at home, our tax dollars subsidize the biggest Bently driving scab welfare queens in the world:  US corporations.  Who, in the end, use the money to industrially mass produce things like an incredibly health adverse food supply using practices learned from the tobacco industry PR textbook.

      •  Batteries are almost as toxic (0+ / 0-)

        You know how expensive it is to dispose of?  Holy cow..battery stations.  Building and later disposing of batteries are a messy process.

    •  Finally, (7+ / 0-)

      what we all knew all along.  

      Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity! - Anon.

      by gulfgal98 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:34:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think you have to answer some (5+ / 0-)


      1.) I don't think anyone thought this Oil was going to go directly into the US supply. Not sure that was really ever implied to my knowledge.

      2.) Drilling offshore does increase the supply to the United States that doesn't come from foreign sources. Unless this oil is specifically marked not to be sold in the US. So the argument that drilling offshore doesn't lessen US demand on foreign oil is correct.

      2b.) Unless you're arguing that by drilling offshore and meeting demands you're encouraging a growth in demand that can't be met by US production leading to increases in Oil importation.

      I agree we should keep this crap off our coasts and out of our country. Oil drilling off shore or anywhere on this planet will only lead to disaster for us in the end. But I don't think it's a very convincing argument. That drilling off shore doesn't increase Domestic Oil supplies.

      •  "Unless (5+ / 0-)

        this oil is specifically marked not to be sold in the US..."

        We sell leases to worldwide corporations so they can use their own revenue to develop an oil prospect, and that includes leases of our continental shelf reserves. Like any other development company, BP subcontracts its operations all around the world, including the finding of the reserve, the drilling, the shipping and the refining, and the wholesale and retail selling of the refined fuels. We get revenues in the form of royalties on reserves drilled on our continental shelves as well as on dry land. There is no specifically marked oil. The leaseholder and developer contract for sales at the depot and the crude may go just about anywhere from there.

    •  I don't know why it should be a surprise ........ (13+ / 0-)

      ....... "our" oil gets sold on the world market.  Hell, I remember this from the original Alaska pipeline discussion.

      Oil is a world commodity.  It is not sold on "the free market".  Oil is one of the most heavily regulated commodities in the world.  

      I'm no great fan of pop culture politics, but if Olbermann and Hayes educated a few more people tonight, God bless them.  

      •  Frankly, I'm surprised that soe are (0+ / 0-)

        surprised by this. It is the nature of the beast. And yes, the word beast is used on purpose and in its most beastly meaning.

        •  It surprises me (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hillbilly Dem, PsychoSavannah, jamess

          that this simple point was not made at the height of the "drill, baby, drill" nonsense during the last election.  It shows that two sacred mantras of the Republicans --  "me first always" and "free trade always" -- are fundamentally incompatible.  Chris Hayes should be commended for bringing the argument together so succinctly.  The question now for Republicans is "Do you think it should be legal for our government to force companies like Exxon to sell its oil to the U.S., when there is no guarantee that the U.S. will pay top dollar?  Are you for America first, or are you for free trade?"    

      •  'original' restriction on oil sales (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Heart of the Rockies, jamess

        My memory seems to be different from yours....Wasn't there a provision in the law that allowed the Trans Alaska pipeline about exporting?

        This would be the one that passed the US Senate by one vote (Vice President Agnew cast it).

        Yes, here's how it started...

        "The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973, while opening vast oil reserves around Prudhoe Bay for production, effectively requires that Alaskan oil be consumed domestically, not exported."
        from Cato Institute in 1995
        an article urging eliminating the restriction.

        "You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them." [Ray Bradbury]

        by RosyFinch on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:35:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Alaskan crude (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jamess, QuestionAuthority

          must be carried in American bottoms to a port in the lower 48 states--typically Long Beach. This is a sop to simplistic economic thinking and the American flagged shipping industry. It doesn't change the fact that oil is an international commodity whose price is set in international markets. As an economic proposition, transportation (moving stuff around) is always a kind of inefficiency.

          There are just 10 kinds of people; those who know binary and those who don't.

          by RudiB on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:03:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your info out of date... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah, Eikyu Saha, RudiB

            The original law that required Alaska North Slope oil to be used domestically was changed in late 1990s to allow oil producers like Exxon and BP to sell Alaskan oil in foreign markets. The hope was that Japanese buyers would create a new market for this Alaskan oil. This never developed as hoped, as there is plentiful oil available from Middle East, Indonesia, etc.

          •  Here is a link.... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah, RudiB

            to a Congressional Researd Service report from 2005:


            I also recall at the time that Alaska oil producers reported resistance from Asian buyers based on the physical properties of Alaskan oil vs. Mid East oil. The Alaskan oil was said to heavier, dirtier, and more difficult to refine than the Saudi crude.

          •  Pro US-flag shipping... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I would also take issue with your criticism of the use of US-flag vessels for the transport of Alaskan crude to West Coast refineries.

            The "Jones Act" law requires that US-flag vessels in domestic trade be owned by US companies, constructed in US shipyards, and manned by US officers and crew.

            It is true that such vessels are more expensive that many foreign-flag vessels because the ship operators must pay US taxes, must buy ships in expensive US shipyards, and must comply with US labor laws.

            But I submit to you that this NOT an undue burden on the multinational conglomerates that own and operate most of the tankers. The increased transport costs are a tiny, tiny percentage of the cost of gasoline at the pump, and our long experience with Alaska oil production shows that the Jones Act provides no meaningful impediment to operations.

            •  I think you're right (0+ / 0-)

              to call me on the pejorative language. My essential point is that shipping North Slope crude to US ports (Long Beach) is not really about keeping "domestic oil" for US use. It is and has alway been about other factors.

              There are just 10 kinds of people; those who know binary and those who don't.

              by RudiB on Wed May 05, 2010 at 10:17:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  That is the first time I ever heard that......... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ..... oil from the Alaska pipeline could only be used domestically.  

    •  I'm pretty sure (13+ / 0-)

      that all oil is "our oil", even if it just happens to be under someone else's sand.

      We who have been nothing shall be all. This is the final struggle. ~E. Pottier

      by ActivistGuy on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:10:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So what President Obama said on the election (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OHdog, RosyFinch, jamess, jfromga, freesia

      trail in 2008 that keeping your tires inflated properly, your engine tuned, and forgo needless driving is more important than "drill, baby drill"! Thus by reducing our dependency on oil and converting to renewable power resources we make our country stronger. Conservation and conversion in relation to energy are the important points for our future survival. Seems simple!

      Amazing the Time I waste Here! Sometimes it's not wasted though!

      by raster44 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:31:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As a Wyomingite, (4+ / 0-)

      I live in a state where EVERYTHING that comes out of every hole, pit and pipe goes OUT of state to someone, anyone, else besides myself and the people here who can't afford heat in the winter; and I have grown up seeing a worldwide economy based on extraction. Just as the energy produced at a coal-fired powerplant, wind farm and hydro-electric dam goes into a national grid, so goes the oil pumped all over the world. I have no statistics, but I'm pretty sure that at least some of the oil shipped from Point Barrow goes to some other country besides ours. Just because a company like BP leases an oil prospect on the U.S.'s continental shelf, it doesn't mean that we get the oil. We get some of the revenues paid for that oil and although the royalties game has been rigged for a long time--Wyoming is owed billions in back royalties--we don't necessarily get the oil. This is something I have been telling people for decades, and they look at me like I'm a lunatic.

    •  the Fungibility claim, surprised me anyways (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eikyu Saha

      but then again, that doesn't take much.

      BTW, minds smarter than me have explained (below),

      it is the The Price of the Barrel of Oil, that is Fungible on the Global Exchange --

      Not necessarily the Actual Barrel itself.

      It's the price that gets "exchanged",
      usually in future commodity markets,
      not necessarily the Gulf Oil being extracted,

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:09:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The names they give the platforms are incredible! (5+ / 0-)

      Perdido? Seems that's a Spanish word for lost.

      And Tahiti? Who in their right mind would name a dirty, nasty oil platform after one of the most beautiful islands in the world? Let me answer my own question. Probably the same people who came up with the Clean Air Inititive, the Healthy Forests Act and No Child Left Behind!

      Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

      by reflectionsv37 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:19:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  WE are all fungible commodities. n.t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich

      by dkmich on Wed May 05, 2010 at 01:38:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You do understand (0+ / 0-)

      that this is the way with all commodities?   Everything from corn to coal or natural gas to oil.  EVERYTHING considered a commodity is sold on the futures market.  

      It started with grains in the mid 1800 but just kept expanding from there.

      Surprising how little, people really know about how the world works.

    •  Olbermann is an idiot. He knows full well (0+ / 0-)

      that gulf oil mostly stays here.  So, I guess that makes him a liar as well.

      The US exports refined petroleum products.  We have massive refining capacities, but they are largely located on the gulf coast.  it is easier to ship those refined products (like gasoline) to Mexico than to ship it all the way across country.

      While Gulf oil is priced at global rates, it mostly stays here.

      Would someone please send some linksto Olbermann.  God forbid a newsperson actually get some facts before blathering on about something he knows nothing about.

      Because the United States is the world’s largest importer, it may seem surprising that it also exports almost 2 million barrels a day of oil, almost all of it in the form of refined petroleum products. Due to various logistical, regulatory, and quality considerations, it turns out that exporting some barrels and replacing them with additional imports is the most economic way to meet the market’s needs. For example, refiners in the U.S. Gulf Coast region frequently find that it makes economic sense to export some of their gasoline to Mexico rather than shipping the product to the U.S. East Coast because lower-cost gasoline imports are available from Europe.

      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

      by Skeptical Bastard on Wed May 05, 2010 at 06:47:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That was indeed a good segment. (48+ / 0-)

    While I've known for some time that oil was fungible, I'd never thought of it in terms of the folks BS'ing about American energy independence, or if I had, I'd forgotten about it again.

    Dead on, nailed that particular propaganda for what it is.

    I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:47:12 PM PDT

  •  Yup - if we drill baby drill, the oil produced (28+ / 0-)

    simply goes into the giant pool of the international market.  Much of the oil produced in Alaska winds up being sold in Asia (Japan

    •  However, (10+ / 0-)

      When we spill what we drill (Alaska) or burst what we drill,(Gulf) its all ours, and all the consequences.

      Actually if would be great if that were true, alas, it is not.  No one understands the deep water currents of the Gulf, this burst (not spill) will impact many nations in the gulf region.  If we do actually get it stopped in a month or two, we can begin cleaning up - - right in the middle of hurricane season.

      Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole.

      by 4CasandChlo on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:49:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and not just in the Gulf: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I saw a map yesterday (maybe on Maddow) showing currents that could take some of the slick straight out of the Gulf and up the Carolina-to-Jersey coast.

        And then, on BBC, I heard a report that ocean fish stocks have been reduced to 6% of what they were 120 years ago.  That's a 94% drop!  

        The oceans have truly become a "tragedy of the commons."  It's time for an enforced moratorium on drilling, fishing, and dumping.  Violate it, and we sink your boat.  Sunken boats, by the way, make great fish-breeding grounds, so long as they aren't leaking more oil.  

    •  Most Alaska Crude (0+ / 0-)

      ends up in pacific northwest Or the west coast.

      Peace Be With You

      by kelib on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:01:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamess, TKO333

        But only because of re-instituted Federal Laws which cap the percentage of crude allowed for deportation (at 7%, I believe, but not sure).
        Interestingly, it's cheaper to ship crude from Alaska to Japan than from Alaska to California.

        Of course, no amount of untapped domestic oil will save our asses.
        I love the oil industry's oft-broadcast ad extolling the idea that our domestic oil and gas supply could heat every American household for the next 60 years.  First, it's a lie.  Second, if it was an accurate assessment, after 60 years, then what?

        Ifr only we could harness the hot air that continuously blow our way from the oil industry bull-shitters.

        •  Calm Down Please (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RF, jamess

          I was just broadcasting a fact not a opinion or any endorsement of any idea. No harm intended!  

          Peace Be With You

          by kelib on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:24:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wasn't worked up (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RF, jamess

            so there's no reason to calm down.
            All I said was that I agreed with you and then explained why you were right.
            My add-on comments about the oil industry had nothing to do with your observation. No reason from my side for you to be defensive over your comment.

            •  I need to calm down (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The nightmare has just begun and I,  like many working Americans depend on autos and trucks that use gasoline for locomotion and to get work done-

              Sick to death I am of folks who do not need locomotion blaming folks like me who do.  It is the government and the industry that is to blame-  TRMS or KO had endless quotes from St Raygun, GHWB, Clinton and Dubya echoing Jimmy Carter's proclamations regarding oil as fuel-

              GM squashed electric cars that worked and killed SAAB which had THE MOST FUEL EFFICIENT and powerful car the market has seen; to date-  (9000 5 speed manual turbo)  I tried the "Car of the Year" from Ford and that thing is horrible and dangerous as a Prius to use on two lane roads I use to commute-  Try and safely pass and you will be in a headon eventually...  Maybe in flat Kansas or Texas but not here in New England and it's mpg numbers and power are not equal to a well run 900 or 9000 turbo SAAB-  Not even close-  SAAB--->>>  SAFE AS A BUS!!!

              So I am in need of a big CALM DOWN exhortation and fast-

              Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

              by RF on Wed May 05, 2010 at 06:31:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  wbramh (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I apologize for being the one to tell you that your comments such as "No reason from my side for you to be defensive over your comment" might be percieved as passive aggressive thus my defensive reactions. If the my previous or this comment sound snarky or offensive I don't intend them to be. "Frends?"    

              Peace Be With You

              by kelib on Wed May 05, 2010 at 10:17:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Bingo! All of the RISK, none of the benefit! (31+ / 0-)

    Given the teeny tiny percentage of "American oil" contributions to the world markets, and the fact that this oil is NOT even earmarked for American use, the American people are being asked to put themselves and our environment at tremendous risk SOLELY so oil companies (often foreign such as BP, British Petroleum) can make obscene profits for themselves and shareholders.

    "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist" --- President Barack Obama, 1-20-2009.

    by tier1express on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:50:01 PM PDT

  •  ya, sad isn't it (8+ / 0-)

    the thing to remember, the Obama administration's embrace of drilling had nothing to do with the effect of more domestic oil, and everything to do with moving the cap and trade bill along...
    they figured it would take 20 years for anything they did in that area to take effect, but sadly now it's all for naught.
    We need to get off the oil habit, our pushers are not interested in our best interests, any more then a meth pusher is

    republicians believe government can't work, when they're in power, they're right

    by askyron on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:50:48 PM PDT

  •  So essentially, the drill babies (13+ / 0-)

    are for nationalized oil companies..isn't that kind of, erm, socialistic?

  •  The only way gulf oil is used solely in the US (15+ / 0-)

    is for the US to be the one doing the drilling--such as a nationalized oil company.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:52:46 PM PDT

    •  Even then... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler, jamess makes no difference at all.

      Even if every drop of offshore oil was marked "only for use in the US", all it would do is drop the global price slightly as some of the US's imported oil is now diverted elsewhere, replaced by the offshore oil.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:22:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I thought this was common knowledge (28+ / 0-)

    There is no such thing as "getting off of foreign oil", there is only "getting off of oil".

    "Who is John Galt?" A two dimensional character in a third rate novel written by Alan Greenspan's dominatrix.

    by Inventor on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:55:18 PM PDT

  •  The issue is US demand. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, jfromga

    Unless demand decreases it doesn't matter where you are drilling. "Drill baby drill" works only if the consumer is seeing all the benefits and none of the risks( oil spill).  I mean it isn't like drilling in Venezuela, Mexico or Nigeria is risk-free. It's juts that US consumers, who consume roughly 20% of world's oil, won't give a shit if this spill were to happen elsewhere.

  •  a simple fact (8+ / 0-)

    and yet who in congress or the media has reminded Americans about this? SURELY the president knows this.

    Makes drill baby drill sound like the refrain at a Saudi pep rally and teabaggers look even more stupid.

    "We heard their ideas, and they stink." Hal Sparks

    by lisastar on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:55:43 PM PDT

  •  I saw the segment... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justmy2, ColoTim, jamess
    ..but I will admit I've read here & other places that all that off-shore oil is fungible global commodity.

    I'm sure some Republicans realize drilling for oil off America's coastlines is not going to magically decrease the price of gas at the pump.

    It's just that American right wingers used "Drill baby, drill!" as an in-your-face bullying tactic aimed at environmentalists & Al Gore.

    Drilling for off-shore oil is just another wedge issue for Republicans.  As in, if it all suddenly goes to shit, just simply blame the Democrats (and the Democratic president).  

    If your base consists of a bunch of idiots who creats signs of this nature...
    ...then they are going to believe any right wing conspiracy theory about off-shore drilling.

    If a million people watch Olbermann, "nobody watches him." If 2 million watch Beck, he's "a national sensation spearheading a political movement."

    by wyvern on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:56:28 PM PDT

  •  We should nationalize the whole industry. (14+ / 0-)
    1. Drill baby drill is a sham.
    1. Reduce prices for consumers.
    1. Make sure the rigs have BAT (best availabe technology) to prevent spills
    1. Use the revenue to promote renewable technologies, infrastructure.
    1. Once we are an oil surplus nation, we then sell it and use the profits to reduce the deficit.
    1. Sometimes, privatization, profit, and free-markets don't work with a damn.
  •  How can you possibly be stunned by this (14+ / 0-)

    Jesus fucking christ!  This means that our political leader desperately need to stop with fucking propoganda and start educating the public.  There is NO SUCH THING as domestic crude oil.  All oil is the same.  It has always been that way.  Holy fucking shit.  I can't believe anyone over the age of 12 didn't know that.

    This is what freaks me out about this debate.

    Do you want to know something else that will turn your stomach?  All of the hundreds of off shore wells in the gulf and off the Alaska coast only account for about 1.4 million barrels of crude per day.  1.4 million out of the 86 million that are put on the world market each and every day.

    This has basically no impact on the price of crude oil.  Particularly if you believe that Saudi Arabia has about 4 million barrels per day of reserve capacity.  Meaning that if every barrel of oil that is pumped from offshore of the U.S. was taken off the market, the Saudis could keep the price exactly where it is right now, exactly where they want it simply by increasing their production.

    Now, that might not always be true.  And we are probably in for a leg up in prices.  But the fact remains that all of this bullshit is about around 1.6% of total daily production.  And the only interests that are served by allowing it are the economic interests of the energy companies, companies like BP or Royal Dutch Shell who are in many cases not even American companies.

    All the other reasons given are lies.  Pure and simple and Mary Landrieu Sarah Palin and the entire Republican Party can stick it up their asses.

  •  Oil and the US Trade Deficit (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RudiB, JeffW, jamess

    Our addiction to oil, both domestically produced and imported, does have economic effects.

    As of January this year, U.S. oil imports made up more than 50% of our trade deficit.

    We could try to drill our way out of our imports of foreign oil, but it's ridiculous to consider that when we've barely scratched the surface of trying to reduce consumption.  We wasted probably 15 years under the Clinton and Bush administrations when average fuel economy of our cars was flat or falling.  

    •  You are assuming (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, chickeee, FishOutofWater, jamess

      production of oil in the gulf simply adds to U.S. gdp.  It does, in a sense but BP is not a U.S. company.  Royal Dutch Shell is not a U.S. company.  As far as I can tell, anyone can bid on those leases and it isn't clear to me that we won't end up 'importing' our own oil.

    •  Chart of Average Fuel Economy (8+ / 0-)

      After improvement in the 70s and 80s, average fuel economy was flat from 1990 to 2005.  This is one of the greatest missed opportunities in the last 50 years.  We had 15 years to reduce our addiction to oil and we did nothing.

      •  nice chart (5+ / 0-)

        when are the domestic fleet targets
        going to get in the 40-50 mpg range?

        probably not soon enough.

        And when will we get,
        an affordable, efficient Electric car?

        probably not soon enough.

        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

        by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:24:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We're making improvements now (4+ / 0-)

          Obama has put in place aggressive CAFE standards

          Car makers are also finally stepping up and making more efficient cars, with better engines and better cars all around.  Look at the 2011 Chevy Cruze Eco.  This is a nice family-sized sedan that will get 40 mpg highway without any hybrid technology.  

          Or how about the Ford Focus with the Ecoboost 1.6L engine.  This thing is going to have more power than any family-sized sedan should and it will get average mpg in the 40s.  All of this is doable today.  We could have been on the way here if we hadn't wasted 15 years blocking higher fuel efficiency standards.

      •  As a child of the 70's (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah, sillia, jamess, DRo

        I really took the message that we needed to conserve and use safe alternatives to heart.  I'm sure most of my generation internalized and retained that message.  Of the three cars I've purchased as an adult, the gas mileage was the first thing I looked at, then the price.  We had it drilled into our heads -- you do not turn the heat above 64 in the winter unless you are ill or there's an old person in the house; you do not turn the AC below 80 in the summer, if you must use it at all.  I still abide by those rules.  It feels as wrong to break them as it would to show up to work in only my undies.  Where I grew up, there was also a water shortage.  Everyone I still know with whom I grew up still brushes their teeth turning on the faucet only to wet the toothbrush, turning it right back off, then turning it back on only to rinse the sink.  Those messages were ingrained, imprinted, driven home, internalized.  I don't think the opportunity was missed so much as it was thwarted. It makes me feel sick and angry.

        "You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here." Max Ehrmann

        by middleagedhousewife on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:08:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But sadly in the 90s... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          middleagedhousewife, jamess

          We had an attitude of an SUV in every garage.  The vogue for "light trucks" erased any improvement that we might have had in fuel efficiency.  Clinton and Bush (often at the behest of auto-state Democrats) kept CAFE standards flat from 1990 until now when Obama just raised them for 2016.  I wish someone would make a documentary about this because it seems to me one of the great scandals of the last few decades.  

        •  I'm angry, too (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          middleagedhousewife, jamess, jfromga

          I learned about global warming from my science teachers in high school in the early 1970's. I'm 56 years old now, and have been doing all of the stuff (recycling, etc.) that people are just starting to learn about for DECADES. While I'm glad that there's a change in popular thinking on some things, like grocery bags, it makes me furious that we haven't been promoting these things all along. Little differences like energy efficient light bulbs add up over time and over millions of households.

          Jimmy Carter had leadership on this and got skewered for it. Personally I've always thought lowering the speed limit to 55 is what cost him the reelection. Since then, have seen no leadership, no call for responsible behavior as a contribution to the environment and our national security.

          "We did not come here to fear the future, we came to shape it." --BHO "Grab a mop." --BHO

          by sillia on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:41:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Re (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Oddly enough, due to Jevon's Paradox, it is likely that increasing US fuel economy will not help at all, in fact, will likely result in increased consumption of the resource!

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:29:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, newpioneer, jamess


      We could try to drill our way out of our imports of foreign oil,

      No, we couldn't. It is not possible to drill that much oil from remaining US reserves. It isn't there.

      It's a myth that more drilling will get "us" (as in US citizens) anywhere. It's good for Oil companies, but not you or me

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:36:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't get me wrong (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        benny05, mightymouse, jamess

        I didn't want to suggest that we could drill our way to trade neutrality.  I'm certainly not someone who thinks that we need a supply-side solution.  I'm definitely in favor of a demand-side solution to our oil problems.

        •  We do have a problem though (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          That was my only point originally.  Our net oil import aren't good for our economy.  The fact that we haven't done anything about our demand over the years 1990-2005 says that we never really cared about it.  We need to start caring about demand, seriously.

  •  However it is possible in the future (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, jamess

    it we experience an oil crisis, that the government could regulate that access to the oil is dependent on that oil coming to this nation.

    However, at the current time you are absolutely correct. Further, every barrel pumped or leaked now is an international resource not a national resource per se.

    "Everybody does better, when everybody does better" - Paul Wellstone 1997

    by yuriwho on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:20:59 PM PDT

    •  Re (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The problem is that if we have such a crisis that the global oil market is fragmented into multiple regional markets, it might be that all trade is fragmented as well, which would be catastrophic in itself.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:31:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's why there are so many nationalized (13+ / 0-)

    oil companies. Because if you don't do that, then private companies end up owning selling public oil resources and paying a pittance for them.

    But we all knew that, "Drill, Baby, Drill" was all gamesmanship.

    "They paved paradise, and put in a parking lot."
    "...Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?"
    - Joni Mitchell

    by davewill on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:32:27 PM PDT

  •  We consume 25% of the world's oil production (11+ / 0-)

    Our land covers 2% of the world's oil supply. Even Bush knew this.

    We can either conserve our way out of this or we can keep going to war.

    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."- Arthur Carlson

    by bobinson on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:36:29 PM PDT

    •  The argument is that a... (7+ / 0-)

      ...combination of increased domestic exploration and production in and outside of the US, with restrictions on imports, we can offset the 16 percent of production from dubious sources.  Essentially, Big Oil's answer to NRDC's stool strategy.  That argument will always win so long as there's sufficient, cheap global supply.

      Of course, this doesn't address the looming depletion that global supply.

  •  I remember this being discussed around here (9+ / 0-)

    during the Presidential primaries when gasoline was approaching $4 a gallon and Clinton and McCain wanted to cut taxes on gasoline.  Before "drill, baby, drill" entered the lexicon.

    Clearly, it needs to be repeated often and loudly.

  •  This "common knowledge" gets overlooked and (9+ / 0-)

    forgotten.  It was worth repeating on Olbermann's show and is worth repeating here.  Thanks.

  •  Oil = Heroin n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, jamess
  •  Just for the sake of accuracy, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mogolori, mariachi mama, JeffW

    oil is not fungible.  Read THIS diary.

    In fact, they were hoping to hit Louisiana light sweet, which is one of the more valuable oils out there.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt -

    by enhydra lutris on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:48:15 PM PDT

  •  Can I also add that right wing talking (5+ / 0-)

    point that has been repeated.  Better that it comes from offshore drilling than on risk being sank from shipping oil overseas.  Looks like that oil still gets shipped overseas.

  •  I've been waiting for the President and (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, mightymouse, jamess, DRo

    Democrats to say this  over and ever again since I heard that the oil is not ours.


    The Republicans have turned into the Archie Bunkers of the 21st Century.

    by gooderservice on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:50:03 PM PDT

  •  It's true (7+ / 0-)

    I go out to the DOE website every month to get avg diesel price for work and it has a list of where our oil comes from and where it goes.
    Exports by destination
    Imports & Exports
    Imports by Country of origin

    Of course we import more than we export but the export number is not insignificant.

    Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will. Mark Twain

    by whoknu on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:52:17 PM PDT

  •  Doesn't quite work that way... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, Bluefin, Billy3 consumable commodities and (especially) petroleum markets.  Transportation costs and other restrictions produce regional markets.  Unlike gold, in which your reserves might very well be warehoused in Monaco after purchase and until you choose to sell them, crude moves.  Your trading may be done in New York or elsewhere, but if you're pumping in the Gulf, you're shipping that product to Gulf markets.  This is why we can estimate the amount of GOM petroleum consumed by our economy.

    •  You'r being polite. Doesn't work that way at ALL. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, revprez, lompe

      US consumers 60% more oil than it produces and that includes 100% of Gulf oil. We export some refined product, we import crude and some refined product at the edges but the idea US doesn't use 60% more oil than it produces is plainly a stupid comment by anyone.

      You would Olbermann would have his staff fact checking those kind of claims by guests so as not to have seriously credibility problems.

      I don't think this is what his boss meant by MSNBC "being like Fox".

      •  I've long since learned... (0+ / 0-)

        ...not to rush headlong into rant. ;)

        •  I appreciate the restraint. (0+ / 0-)

          very 'civil' of you.

          The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

          by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:23:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, the important thing... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

   we learn something.  Believe it or not, the petroleum is interesting enough that you might want to consider getting over your instinctive contempt for it.  There'll be plenty of time and plenty of reasons to be outraged once you get a feel for it.

      •  That is a red herring (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        of course the oil companies are going to refine the product and use it where the transportation costs are the lowest,  That means that the oil produced in the gulf is mostly consumed in the states.  That is because the transportation costs are lower and hence the profit margin is higher.  Simple economics.   But that has bugger all to do with the essential point which is that it is a global petroleum market.  That what really determines the ultimate price of oil and hence gasoline is on the macro level (not counting taxes and other refinery related expenses) are global production levels.  And the notion that the levels of domestic drilling will significant alter the global price of crude oil as promulgated by the Drill baby Drill crowd is absolute and total bullshit.  There is no denying that and if you try to argue otherwise I would suggest that you are an industry shill.

        •  The point your missing... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

 that oil--a physical thing--is a commodity, and like any other commodity its trade can be restricted.  Iran is a producer that sells on the global market.  The US imports no Iranian oil, and hasn't for thirty years. You cannot reconcile these facts if you believe that a barrel of oil is perfectly fungible always and everywhere.

          Now that we've established you can choose not to get crude from somewhere, the question is how do you stop importing the 16 percent supply  sourced from the Middle East?  Hint, you're not going to do it by eliminating the 25 percent from the Gulf.

        •  thanks SW (0+ / 0-)

          that is an enlightening explanation on the Global Market Price setting.

          appreciate it.

          The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

          by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:28:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The oil industry represents the lifeblood (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            of many communities in the gulf and through out the sunbelt.  They will defend this thing with their lives and against all rationality.  They have seized on the national security angle because they have been so successful exploiting it since 9/11.  They are not going to give it up because of a bunch of oil coated birds and dead shrimp.  You will hear from their apologists on this forum and anywhere that they can spew their crap.  Their very way of life depends on it.

    •  Exactly. This diary is a bit misleading. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, revprez, Billy3

      Yes, crude oil is traded on global markets.  That trading is often on the futures markets, betting what the commodity price of crude oil will be in 30 days. (Remember the "speculators" that everybody blamed for the increase in gasoline prices?)  These are financial transactions on the commodities market.  

      However, the actual crude oil that comes out of the Gulf of Mexico is generally transported here to the Gulf Coast, often by pipeline.  

      It is not true that, as far as we are concerned, a barrel from the Middle East is the same as a barrel from the Gulf.  It costs a lot more for us to get a barrel from the Middle East here.  

      •  Way too polite <grin>. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Some US oil traded at the fringes of market mostly refined products but Olbermann and his guest (and the diarist) are way into tin foil hattery in claiming US does not consume all the oil it produces plus 60% more.  

        If US eliminated 100% of imports by getting to current European/Japanese levels of energy efficiency, 50% better than US we still would need 100% of the Gulf oil. We can't turn those wells off any time soon is the real danger.

        •  it's kind of embarassing to this site (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, thestructureguy, Billy3

          that such misinformation as was disseminated by Chris Hayes was turned into a diary that skyrocketed to the top of the rec list.  

          Whatever happened to "reality based."  Not in this case.  

          Maybe I was too polite.  There are too many people here who seem to believe believe that a barrel of crude oil produced in the Gulf is exactly the same to us as a barrel of crude oil produced in the Middle East.  For so many reasons (what about the fact that the U.S. gets royalties on the Gulf Crude?) that's just not true.  

          •  Depends on what sort of crisis you're facing... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...if world prices fluctuate, then yes, a barrel in Saudi Arabia is the same as a barrel from the Gulf (at least when you look at just the futures).  If a well head explodes in the Gulf, then no.  Basically, it's the difference between bargain hunting and sitting at home waiting for the delivery truck to show up, if that makes any sense.

            •  What I blame Olbermann and the guest for (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              is not making that kind of distinction.  Simply saying "it's all the same" without saying that you are talking about the futures market is misleading.  As was the implication that Gulf crude somehow just goes into some world market instead of directly to the U.S. for refining -- which is what happens to it.  There is a big difference to us in the U.S. between refining a barrel of crude from the  Gulf and refining a barrel of crude from Saudi Arabi.  For one, it is lots more expensive to get that Saudi barrel here. For two, it is not the same quality crude (I don't want to start going into gravity and sulphur content, and how some refineries can refine heavy crude and some cannot.  That's an entirely different subject.)  

          •  DKOS not immune to its own Fox News syndrome. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            People post diaries that are what people want to hear such as this one where someone on Olbermann makes an either totally false statement or a diarist misunderstands what was said and completely fallacious diary is quickly recommended to the top.

            People love to hear what they wish was true whether it is or not. It is the secret of Fox News success. DKOS is not immune from it as this diary and others on the rec list demonstrate.

            Just have to grin and bear it.

            •  perhaps we need (0+ / 0-)

              an Editorial Truth Patrol?

              or maybe just calm rational discussions,
              from all points of view.

              I do think my points about Oil Addiction,
              and Supply and Demand, are relevant.

              But what do I know,
              I'm just the poor "uninformed" diarist,
              pandering to an "uninformed" audience.

              Thanks for enlightening us Billy3,
              I nominate you Editor (and Sheriff) in Chief.

              The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

              by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:34:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  DKOS already has a vigilante group that HR's (0+ / 0-)

                but they are more into preventing debunking of the "Just what I wanted to hear" diaries than into fact checking.

                Me, I'd eliminate the HR and whatever time Meteor Blades spends attending to the religious doctrine of the almighty HR, use that time to fact check diaries and demote the more outlandish off the rec list.

                In this case, Revprez is the fact sheriff.

                •  good suggestions (0+ / 0-)

                  about HR vs Fact-checks.

                  But still don't see how you "enforce that" --

                  short of civil discussions.

                  The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

                  by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:44:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Lmao... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I've never been a fan of "fact checking."  Not convinced that the term means much in the realm of human events, where information is sparse, unorganized, conflicted, and all too often subject to interpretation. Don't expect to use my HRs all that much, either.

                  Maybe DK could use something like a Wonk Red Team.  Just dive into diaries and stir up a conversation on the nuts and bolts of it.  That's usually what happens under DarkSyde's posts.  If you'll indulge me the personal prejudice, it's nice to see that DK isn't such an echo chamber that you can't have a contrarian view on something as far out of the public's mind as say Flexible Path.

            •  I know. As proof, see where I was told (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              by someone here to STFU because I was demonstrating -- with federal government (MMS) documentation -- that the implication that Gulf crude is just "sold on the world market" (as the diary quoted KO's guest) is just not true if you are talking about actual sales of crude and not the futures market.  

              I guess that sometimes here reality takes a back seat to bashing the demon of choice for the day.  

      •  Just reporting what I heard on K.O. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        benny05, snafubar

        I didn't have time to do a Research Dissertation.

        And yes, I employed a bit of hyperbole to make some important points.

        I would personally like to see some Pie Charts
        for each company in the Gulf,
        showing how much goes to the US,
        and how much goes elsewhere.

        But SO far, I've been unable to find that data.

        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

        by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:44:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How about federal government maps (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snafubar, VClib, Billy3

          showing the pipelines that bring oil and gas production from the Gulf of Mexico to the continental U.S.?

          That is enough there to show where the production goes.  

          And you could ask anybody here in South Louisiana. When (after Katrina), people were saying we should just abandon the area, we kept shouting as loud as we could about how much of the country's oil and gas passes through here on its way to the rest of the country.  

          •  thanks for the link coffetalk (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            still looking for those Pie Charts, though.

            Question, when the Oil is Drilled in the Gulf, Successfully

            It ends up on Ships, right?

            What are the destinations for those Ships --
            is it always LA and TX?

            just asking.
            I'm trying to understand this too.

            The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

            by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:55:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No. When Oil is drillied in the Gulf (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              liz, VClib, jamess, Billy3

              it ends up in pipelines laid on the Gulf floor that are connected to the rig.  Look at this MMS (federal government) map of the Gulf.    Those blue lines are crude oil pipelines.  (The red ones are natural gas pipelines.) The dots are the wells drilled in the Gulf.  This shows all the pipelines taking crude oil from the Gulf of Mexico wells to onshore Louisiana and Texas.  

              That's where the crude oil goes.  Once onshore, it is then sent to refineries.  There are lots of refineries in South Louisiana and Texas, and it can then be pipelined elsewhere.  Those refineries ALSO get crude oil from other countries, and that is brought in on the big vessels.  

              Again, this is a really simplistic explanation. But we in South Louisiana are very aware of this stuff.

              •  thx again, so once it's refined (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                can't it be sold overseas,
                if there's a better price to be had, elsewhere?

                The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

                by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:08:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Once it is refined into gasoline (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib, jamess, Billy3

                  and other products (jet fuel, diesel, etc.) it is generally sold regionally, or, once again, sent by pipeline somewhere to be sold.  Remember, every mile that crude oil, or the products, travel adds to the cost. It is MUCH cheaper to transport these products by pipeline than by other means, such as ocean vessels.  So, refined products are generally sold regionally or put into large pipelines and transported to where they are ultimately sold.

                  It makes little economic sense to put gasoline in a vessel to transport overseas.  There are refineries across the world to supply gasoline and products to other areas.  

                  We generally refine all of the Gulf Crude here in the U.S.  And because we use more than we produce, we ALSO import crude oil from overseas (on those big vessels) to be refined here.  

                  •  OK then (0+ / 0-)

                    What was Chris Hayes talking about?

                    I always thought he was a straight shooter.

                    The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

                    by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:43:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  He is talking about the futures market (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      VClib, jamess, Billy3

                      in crude oil as a commodity.  Futures contracts are bought and sold as financial transactions.  Lots of companies do that to hedge positions against fluctuating prices.  But it's all taking positions in a futures market -- taking financial positions for crude oil that is going to be produced 30 days from now.  But financial traders don't take actual delivery of the barrels of crude oil for refining.  When the actual delivery date rolls around for that particular barrel of crude oil, the financial traders are out of it.  Either that, or they trade their positions so as to take actual delivery of crude oil that is produced near their refinery.  Hayes is talking about the financial market, NOT the actual barrels that are refined into gasoline.  

                      What is misleading about what he said is that the implication is that the actual barrels of crude oil that come out of the ground go into some "world market" where they are fungible.  That is not true.  As I showed you, the crude oil that comes out of the Gulf is transported by pipeline into the continental U.S. where it is refined.  

                    •  Chris Hayes... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      VClib, jamess, Billy3

             a journalist, not a polymath.  It's not like he's making more mistakes than anyone else in the punditocracy.  He's also suspicious of the petroleum market, but then again so is almost everyone else--including the market participants.  

                      There's a reason why those Goldman Sachs boys can keep cool under pressure.  When you get to real dollars and cents, as in real oil slicks, no one's immune to passion.

                      •  thanks for your take (0+ / 0-)

                        We do love to hate Big Oil.

                        perhaps that's because of all their Big Profits,

                        and their lack of focus on the future of the planet?

                        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

                        by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:07:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Can't really blame them... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...the petroleum industry takes it cue from the customer.  Sure, it will fight threats to its bottom line and battle with environmentalists trying to education the public, but I could just as easily blame econerds for failing to identify more effective ways to compete.  I know the pain. I'm sympathetic to the most ignored class of advocates around--the wannabe space settlers.

              •  Of course! (0+ / 0-)

                But so what?

      •  Re (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, jamess

        Yes, crude oil is traded on global markets.  That trading is often on the futures markets, betting what the commodity price of crude oil will be in 30 days.

        Remember as well that "betting" is kind of a misleading term. Airlines aren't "betting" as in "rolling the dice" on oil prices.

        You can't run a business not knowing if oil is going to be $10 higher when next month's flights need to be fueled. Airlines, large institutional consumers, refineries, they use the futures market to buy at a given price so they don't sell tickets based on $70 oil and lose money on them when they have to fuel the plane for $80.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:16:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Basic premise that oil is a commodity is correct (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, jamess, revprez

      It is certainly true that the price of oil is set on a world market. If we produced oil in US and sold it to our citizens for $20/bbl, we would be forgoing a lot of money that we could get by selling it at market price. That money could be used to do a lot of useful things.

      That said, there are some 'market inefficiencies' that make oil less than perfectly fungible. At the very least:

      1. transportation costs - it is cheaper to get oil from gulf or Venezuela (ack! Hugo Chavez) than from Saudi.
      1. oil/refinery matchups - oil comes out of the ground in different forms, some easier to refine than others. Refineries are tuned to a specific type of oil and it is very inconvenient if that specific type is not available.

      Overall, the assumption of 'fungibility' is a reasonable approximation for oil. However, it isn't quite perfect.

      -2.38 -4.87: Damn, I love the smell of competence in the morning!

      by grapes on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:18:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Precisely... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, jamess, Billy3

        ...and an important thing to remember is that fungibility in commodities depends on the cost of time and place of delivery.  Oil is (almost) perfectly fungible because the production and distribution network, if not costs through specific LOCs in the net, is approximately even geographically. With caveat,  it works out that the spot price of oil from the Gulf is the same as the spot price of oil in Saudi Arabia, even though sellers will satisfy demand closest geographically before seeking other buyers (assuming they have supply they can reasonably expect to deliver).

    •  We're still playing resource extraction (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I don't like selling unmilled, old growth logs to Japan either.

      We live in a culture that wants 20% returns on investment, and won't pay the property taxes for decent education. So we send GEDs out into the woods to cut trees, or down to the Gulf to lose a limb on the business end of a drill.

      The first thing you have to do is stop paying your junkie.

    •  You've got it. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, jamess, revprez

      The discussion you've started has exposed the flaw in the H-O dialogue and the premise of this diary:
      That it is the price of oil that is fungible, much less so the actual product itself.
      Very little domestic oil (and almost no gas) ever leaves the US due to the factors given by others on this thread (trans cost, etc.).
      But the price we pay for it floats with the global price level, because they can get us to pay it. It's just a bid process.
      If we refused to pay the global price, then some of it would be diverted overseas, seeking the higher global price.

      Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

      by Bluefin on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:02:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks for that Bluefin (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        revprez, Bluefin

        that explanation makes a lot of sense.

        about the Price being the Fungible item,
        not necessarily the specific Barrel.

        much obliged, I was starting to get confused,
        by all the different takes, and discussions.

        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

        by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:11:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I want to be careful there... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamess, Bluefin doesn't really mean something to say the "price" is fungible.

        Let's take the non-naked short example.  A guy holds a contract for a barrel of oil of a given grade.  I borrow it from him on Thursday, paying interest on its value for as long as he's not made whole.  I then go and sell the contract the same day to another guy. Now I wait until  Friday before go and outright buy a contract for another barrel of the game grade at a (hopefully) lower price.  Then I give my lender  the contract to that new barrel + interest.  If I gamed it right, then I make a profit on the difference between the sale of the loaned contract and the purchase of the new contract + interest accrued.

        As you can see, it's the contract that's fungible.

        •  that's a point well made. (0+ / 0-)

          and if the counter-parties of each contracts,
          are say in France, and the other in Argentina,

          haven't you just "exchanged" that Oil,
          on the World Market?

          (not that you would actually do that revprez)

          I remember hearing that 90% of the Futures Contract Speculation,
          that drove up the price of Gas over $4 a gallon, a few years back ...

          In 90+ % of those Contracts, not a single drop of Oil changed hands,
          still the Price of Oil skyrocketed.

          Funny system we got there. Worldwide players can bid up the price, for kicks and grins.

          The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

          by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:39:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If it were a security... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...then no problem.  Thing is a commodities contract has an address as well as a delivery date, which means (all things being equal)

            To maximize my take, I need to net  a buyer that can  minimize my transportation costs. This does mean that  if say demand at world prices in Argentina far out strips say demand to a guy who lives right next to the well sourcing my barrel, I could  make more going with the guy in Argentina. Generally, though, inter-regional demand will not fluctuate  that sharply (which is why we can quote world prices and treat contracts as fungible objects).  My transportation costs prevail.

            Bear in mind this a crude simplification, but fairly accurate from a first order perspective.

          •  Kicks and grins, maybe... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...but it takes two to tango, and those speculators put something in the pot.  Liquidity.  The world's already decided they like that; we're just haggling over how much is excessive vis a vis the risks.

        •  Urg, you guys are giving me a headache, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I just don't get what all these derived mechanisms bring as a benefit to anyone but the overly slick players. The 'smartest guys in the room' responsible for the biggest messes.
          The negatives to society way outweigh any fun 'n games positives for WS/City types.
          After watching an hour of Charlie Rose sucking up to Mr. Blankenfield (sp) (CEO- Goldman-Rapacious Co.).
          And knowing the worm and his cohorts make more than the GDP of most nations, I'm ready for some large changes.

          Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

          by Bluefin on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:46:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The benefit... (0+ / 0-)

   liquidity, more of which reduces risk to investors and receivers of capital by permitting quick pivots from failing investments to more successful ones.  Liquidity is what allows us to extend credit in the first place, giving businesses breathing room to their obligations irrespective to an extent from fluctuations in their bottom line.  This, of course, is principle.  In practice, a measure taken to manage liquidity in one direction carries a risk in the other, and you have to weigh say the benefit of short selling to raising capital against the risk of illiquidity that may result.

            I doubt Blankenfield and GS management make more than "most" nations report in GDP, but they certainly manage a lot of  capital and obligations.  When we think about a way forward, we'll want to know 1) what better way is there to manage that kind of wealth and 2) can we do so without crippling it.  That to me is more important than anything else.

            •  The benefits... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jamess, revprez

              to the players, the bailouts to the rest of us?
              What needs to be done is to design the playpen so that the shit risk stays in the playpen, in their own diapers. Not letting them crawl around crapping on our furniture.

              1a} Rule 1- No such thing as 'Too big to fail'
              "1) what better way is there to manage that kind of wealth and

              1. can we do so without crippling it.

               That to me is more important than anything else."

              I sort of follow you 'insiders', but 2yrs college accounting, handling RE investments and 401k is it for me.
              Now I just deposit the checks and pay the bills, but my honors grad kids are working for top companies and making half what I used to.
              I've seen here many articles on the redistribution of wealth upward today. I used to live on the Mexican border, traveled there a lot. Don't want the same two tier society here (few uber-wealthy-most dirt poor-small middle class), it's unworkable long term, just witness the de-stabilization of Mexico.
              I just don't want the average person having to cover the risks for the compulsive excessive risk-takers. They do design the games themselves, right? With the rest of us unknowingly in it. Do tell how they can lose then, they have rigged it so we lose. Vampire squids indeed.
              Things did seem to work reasonably well from the FDR reforms of the thirties until the Rubin-Gramm-et alia changes of the 1990s. I don't buy all the 'innovative finance' bullshit.
              Hate to sound like a teabagger theme, but they do have about their only point with this issue.

              Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

              by Bluefin on Wed May 05, 2010 at 05:17:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The average person... (0+ / 0-)

                ...isn't free and clear in this either.  There is no bright line to be drawn between equity and bond markets, and their derivatives permit activity in both to proceed at an even greater scale (on the order of quadrillions).  You buy an insurance policy, take out mortgage, get a car note, activate a credit card; if you're doing any of the sort of everyday financial activity that has made us one of the most leveraged societies in the world then you're as much as a participant as anyone else.   We didn't bail out the financial sector because we're altruistic and want our rich to look all nice and shiny.  We did it because people's homes, retirements and lines of credit were on the line.

                Now we can do something about this, but we should have our eyes wide open about the cost in austerity underlying any effort to  reduce  exposure to risk.  Even then, it'll be hard to see what life is like beyond cosmetic changes in the system.  Societies that are out of the financial loop are generally third world and have other problems that obscure attempts to use them as cleanly to vary in financial outcomes due to varying risk exposure.  So where else can we look?  Asia, Europe?  Even as progressive as those societies are, they're as deeply codependent on the modern financial system as we are.

                This is why I give the teabaggers no quarter.  At least the most radical progressive wants out of the system entirely, economic outcomes be damned.  The teabaggers want to have their cake and eat it to.  They want their credit and they want the Fed to never make a move to save the markets that give it to them.  They want their industry and they want their government to stand aside when even government is the only source of capital that can  save it. They want their Medicare and believe it grows on trees. They're the very model of self-entitlement culture that they claim to despise.

                •  Where I differ I guess: (0+ / 0-)

                  You buy an insurance policy, take out mortgage, get a car note, activate a credit card; if you're doing any of the sort of everyday financial activity

                  Except for the buying insurance item (and some of that is forced), I use cash mostly (checking and real hoarded cash/assets, few paper investments now), bring on some deflation.
                  I have moved in that direction for years, and avoid anything that would require such shackles. Don't know if it can continue, but I try. Kinda like 'going off the grid' (would like to try that too, rural, got room for it, just that the tech is too unstable yet).

                  Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

                  by Bluefin on Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:23:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam, snafubar, jamess

    Thanks much! :)

  •  This is another reminder of how horrific (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, snafubar, jamess

    The progressive messaging apparatus is.  This was one of Obama's reason for opposing drilling way back in 2008.  It has been part of the criticism for a long time.  But yet, on the numberb1 progressive blog, this still comes as a surprise to many.  But yet somehow Republicans can convince the public of blatant nonsense through the echo chamber and media enablement, even if it is via supposed fact checking.  

    Somehow, these types of messages have to make it beyond policy wonks or just heavy news consumers.  It is going to take a long term strategy.  Social media may help, but there is a lot more needed.

    "Ultimately, we need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right, between business leaders and environmentalists" - President Obama, March 31

    by justmy2 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:19:03 PM PDT

  •  It's surprising that this isn't widely understood (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole, jamess

    All oil is sold on a global market.  The oil that is drilled and extracted from the US doesn't stay here in the US market. It's just sold on the global market.  We're not reducing our use of foreign oil through domestic drilling.  The whole "let's free ourselves from foreign oil through drilling!" has always been a totally full of shit argument.

    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

    by Triscula on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:32:04 PM PDT

  •  Exacto mundo (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bwren, jamess

    Oil drilled from Alaska, for instance, goes to the demand, such as Asia. Highest bidder always wins.

    People also confuse domestic oil resources with domestic refining ability. Thus, people on the West Coast really don't see much benefit from oil rigs off the coast, or from Alaska, because the refiners here in Calif. play this little game of restricting production. You can't put crude oil in your car. It has to be "cracked" into gasoline and other fuels.

    The ONLY way a nation can assure itself of "independence," assuming it has the oil resources, is to nationalize the oil industries here. And you're not going to get the far Right to sign up for that idea. What they DO support is allowing multinational corporations to exploit our resources, whether they know it or not.

  •  I'm Confused - Why Are We Pretending to Be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, lompe

    Surprised by this?  Increasing the amount produced domestically still decreases dependence on foreign supplies.  Are there seriously people so stupid they thought ever gallon of oil pumped offshore of the United States ended up in the United States?

    Sometimes I get the mock outrage... this one I really don't see the point of.

    •  yes I think there are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      amk for obama

      folks, kept that much, in the dark.

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:58:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No outrage. It's dumb to drill in the deep Gulf (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snafubar, jamess

      when the environmental risk is so high. A spill in the Saudi desert would cause much less environmental damage and would be much easier to stop.

      look for my DK Greenroots diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

      by FishOutofWater on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:58:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes They Really Are That Uninformed (5+ / 0-)

      But don't blame them. It is a myth that is spread by politicians and media talking heads who know better. Even Obama jumped on the bandwagon of pretending that drilling off-shore was part of a sensible comprehensive plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

      If our political leaders were making decisions in America's own self-interest then we won't allow any oil extraction at all in the US, period. We would save all domastic sources against the day that is not to far off when the world runs out of oil. We are going to need that oil help build the infastructre to create and distrute the new sources of renewable energy and to help us during a period of transition.

      But because our nation is run for the benefit of big corporations, we will allow them pay a pitance for the right to explore and extract our resources and then to turn around and sell it to the highest bidder on the open marker.

    •  The issue is supply side vs demand side. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, jamess

      In a world with rapidly growing demand in Asia, ANY domestic dependence on oil is going to be ever more expensive.

      If, by some miracle, the US swore off oil entirely, we might still want to drill (Global Warming aside) in order to sell our oil to the cash-rich, oil-guzzling folks in India and China. Then we would have all the cash.

      But that's not gonna happen.

      -2.38 -4.87: Damn, I love the smell of competence in the morning!

      by grapes on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:20:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The point of the diary is to debunk the rw meme (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      frisco, snafubar, roberta g, lisastar, jamess

      that off-shore drilling will ensure the "safety" of "america". I bet majority of americans fall for that crap and the diarist did a very good job of debunking that myth.

      Between birthers, deathers and mouth-breathers, the gop has got 'teh crazy' and 'teh stoopid' covered.

      by amk for obama on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:36:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama Said (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ortcutt, FishOutofWater, jamess, Wom Bat

    We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

    "Simon Wiesenthal told me that any political party in a democracy that uses the word 'freedom' in its name is either Nazi or Communist."

    by bink on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:57:26 PM PDT

  •  Drill, Mooseburger, Drill!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    can't we burn up the planet any faster?

    "Hate Arizona's new law? Ask Washington to do it's job". Ross Douthat

    by Superpole on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:07:22 PM PDT

  •  That's also why oil embargoes don't work unless (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    overall production is cut.

    Oil fungibility makes identification of source of origin extremely difficult.

  •  A hint for me today on oil prices. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I got emails from two cruise lines I sell to the public- the fuel surcharge of $3.50 per day per person will back into effect in one week.

  •  It's more expensive to refine oil in the US. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

     Massive regulatory hurdles is the excuse they use.

    Massive regulatory hurdles make it highly unlikely the U.S. will see any new refineries built anytime in the near future, "if ever again," said Neal Ryan, a managing partner at Ryan Oil & Gas Partners LLC.

    The nation's last so-called grassroots refinery, one built from scratch, was completed more than 33 years ago

    This is probably why almost all US oil is sold on the world market. This sure doesn’t work well with that energy independence thing. Maybe we should at least nationalize oil refinement, if US companies don’t want to invest in it.

  •  nothing really new (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler, jamess

    about that exchange.

    We can't become not dependent on foreign oil.

    Let's remember that we should care about people even after they're born. - A. Grayson

    by IL JimP on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:31:11 PM PDT

      •  huh? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Let's remember that we should care about people even after they're born. - A. Grayson

        by IL JimP on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:14:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What he means is that we MUST get (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ImpeachKingBushII, jamess

          "not dependent" on oil - foreign or domestic eventually.

          Take a good look at the picture of the Earth taken from Apollo 17 in 1971 - the "Blue Marble" photo.

          All the oil that ever will be is in that picture.

          There will never be any more in our lifetimes that will EVER match the demand that we consume it - and the rate at which the Earth consumes fossil fuels is INCREASING as the amount decreases.

          The crossing of those two curves is the "peak oil" debate that has been pondered for 60 years and the truth is we have NO CLUE what the truth actually is.

          Either way, we have to get off of fossil fuels, global warming or not, because we will run out, and since economies are geared to INCREASING consumption of the stuff at the current moment, we had better figure something out fast.

          We've squandered the 40 years we've had the warnings - like the 73 Arab oil embargo and the '79-81 OPEC redux.

          We moved to small, fuel efficient cars, and then the price came back down and we invented SUV's - and we're at a net average fuel economy has gone up, the number of vehicles has multiplied so that our consumption still increases faster than production can keep up for very long.

          And what everyone forgets is that we use oil for a lot more than gasoline and diesel - plastics for one.

          Imagine heating your house with dollar bills.

          Burning oil when we could use it for tangible and permanent products we have no other way to make is also something that never gets talked about.

          So foreign or not, we have to get off of oil as a source of fuel.

          The way that reality is so routinely ignored makes me wonder how many of the power brokers in the US and th world are willfully trying to start Armageggon.

          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:23:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as I rode my bicycle back home from the store... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            snafubar, jamess

   in Philly, a shiny white object that sounded like an 18 wheeler blew by me at break-neck speed. It had a big black decal on the back. It read: HUMMER. Having almost gotten my left leg severed and turned into a lifeless bag of jello bones by a pick-up truck almost running over me and my bike in 2003, and spending a whole year learning to walk again,I was relieved he noticed me in time to swerve around me. But I shook my head, that these gas-guzzlers are still allowed on any street anywhere. It's the ultimate selfish act of cognizant dissonance, if not downright effete snobbery.

            But then I thought again, "Well, when all the world's oil runs out, what will they do with their HUMMER then"? Maybe that's the shock effect that will finally make everyone wake-up and smell the coffee, when they're stuck with a $100,000 hunk of steel they can't drive to the gas station-because aren't anymore gas stations.

            "Peak oil" was already reached and surpassed years ago. We should already have a plan for transitioning our economy from carbon-based fuels to green renewable, environmentally-friendly fuel sources, off the drawing boards, in place, and actively in the highest state of production today!

            The answer is that as long as Big Oil/Big Coal controls our government and dictates our energy policies, they control our future. And from where I'm sitting, it's not looking very good for the "home team".

            "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

            by ImpeachKingBushII on Wed May 05, 2010 at 02:22:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ultimately we have to realize how many of those (0+ / 0-)

              in positions of power read the book of Revelation and think it's what is SUPPOSED to happen...

              so whether they actually start it, or when it starts they just pray that they're on the "good" list and will be vacuumed off the planet to sit with God and son Jesus in the Sky Box and watch us all eat ourselves -

              it still scares the fuck out of me to contemplate whether "G"od gave us the big brains and opposible thumgs or we evolved from the primordial slime to be "smarter" than all the other animals...whenever it looks like we've screwed the pooch and it really is of our own doing, we drop back and punt and say "oh, well, I guess this is what the 'G'od we invented in our fantasies really wanted"

              And the way the story of "G"od is written - if the planet really does end in a hail of death and turns to a lifeless chunk of rock in the Cosmos - those who believe such will still believe without hesitation that it was EXACTLY what was supposed to happen...

              ...and if there never was a "G"od...oh, well, right?

              I became a "militant" "hateful" atheist (their labels, not mine) because to think about the rational 'what if' - if they are wrong - is so much more devastating than if I'm wrong.

              If I'm wrong - well, we put criminals in jail and move to alternative energy - so?

              If they're wrong, and we let the most evil creatures since the last ones live our their lives to write lies they call memoirs and the planet really dies for lack of foresight,

              can anyone really say my "what if" is more important to worry about than their "what if"?

              Thanks for having my back.

              - fellow member of the "home team" - currently about five levels beneath the water boy.

              George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

              by snafubar on Wed May 05, 2010 at 08:01:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  btw snafubar... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...quite coincidentally, I was just reading this morning about your parting Armageddon reference in your last sentence. These are the top five arms dealers in the world today:
            1-The United States.
            5-The United Kingdom.

            Notice that four out of the five are permanent members of the UN Security Council and which have veto power over any resolution introduced?

            "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

            by ImpeachKingBushII on Wed May 05, 2010 at 02:31:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ya had to remind me, din't ya...:) (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              And I think not impeaching - not executing King Bush II who along with his cabinet were all clearly guilty of war crimes and high crimes and misdemeanors - will be what our generations will be remembered for.

              We impeached Clinton because the conquest was so inconsequential...we slayed a tame dragon.

              When it came to taking down a real dragon that really ate half the village - we balked because we couldn't admit we let the dragon in the nieghborhood for so long in the first place.

              be good ...

              George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

              by snafubar on Wed May 05, 2010 at 07:51:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hmm (0+ / 0-)

                not executing King Bush II who along with his cabinet were all clearly guilty of war crimes and high crimes and misdemeanors - will be what our generations will be remembered for.

                I would think that not subjecting him and his cabinet to the judicial process, which includes a fair, timely trial, adequate representation, and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty - along with a punishment proportionate to the crime and consistent with our legal code - would be remembered far longer, if we just executed him because you think he is clearly guilty of war crimes.

                I guess impeachment proceeding are too tame for you, you jump directly to execution.

                Should it be a lynching in the public square, televised on live TV? To show how much more civilized we are than those we oppose?

                Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:10:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh here we go (0+ / 0-)

                  there would be a trial to the execution, but you're here to make it about me and my flaws.

                  Hey - in order to be a trial there had to be the courage for the country to even have hearings.

                  We found it so easy to have hearings for two and half years to chase Paula Jones, Monica Lewisky, Gennifer Flowers and Whitewater, Susan McDougal...

                  When Henry Waxman tried to hold hearings about Iraq when the Republicans were in power, the republicans who then had control over comittee rules and assignments would not even grant him permission to hold the hearings in the Capitol and Waxman was forced to get a basement office building elsewhere.

                  Is your disdain for me so personal that you are now defending the likes of Bush et al just so you can take more cheap shots at me?

                  Obviously any execution would have to take place after a hearing. Of course given how the Bush administration doesn't seem to have much use for hearings themselves when it came to gitmo or even US citizens like Jose Padilla and simply resorted to "illegal enemy combatant" and military tribunals, (something still advocated by the large mouths and small heads of the Republican minority for instance in the latest Christmas day attacks or the failed car bomb of last week), my comment makes utterly no claim that I'm simply asking for head because I'm just a rotten guy.

                  I say that execution is warranted based on the public statements of Cheney on National TV interviews that yes, he authorized waterboarding, which is torture under the terms of treaties that we signed, according to the rules of international bodies that we are participants in, and therefore I can implicitly say without explicitly following each step to the satisfaction of sanctimonious people like you that

                  IF we had the courage to have a trial

                  and IF we followed all the rights and privleges and proceedures that Bush did not allow for others

                  THEN it seems clear by evidence in the public domain that many of the Bush administration would be eligible for execution for war crimes.

                  I can still say this as a lament that no such hearings were ever held without having you make such claims that i'm just out for someone's head because there's somethign wrong with me.

                  Now seriously - this is the third thread in two days where you have attacked my personally.

                  What will you have done with me?

                  Why are you trying to argue wth me as if somehow I'm going to fall to my kneess and declare that you truly have decided by yourself

                  no hearing
                  no trial
                  no judge beyond your own ego

                  that you alone get to be the sole arbiter of all that I say on this site?

                  If your systematic and dogmatic attention to me over these last five days is any indication that you do not plan to leave me alone to comment on this site without feeling obligated to attack me personally on every issue, you are yourself in violation of site rules.

                  If it's not about me, (which you keep accusing me of) you spend an inordinate amount of your energy making your arguments specifically about me, and that seems to indicate a fundamental disconnect in your logic that will not recognize the cognitive dissonance of your own argument.

                  If I'm so bad, dont' feed the bears, go get a zookeeper and tell him the animal has gone berserk and let them handle it.

                  But for you to follow me around and keep needling me and then becoming apoplectic that I'm not willing to apologize to you individually when you take exception to whatever I say, I make no apology to say that you've got as many issues as any magazine rack or other person you're blathering on about having "issues".

                  For a guy who's principal complaint about me is that I need to get over myself, you spend a lot of energy following me around and not taking the few simple and direct steps that would/could (if warranted) take care of whatever problem you think I am causing here without you having to do anything further.

                  How much more effort will you invest in pursuing me as a person, and not solving the problem you think I am creating?

                  Get over myself indeed. Who has assigned you this mission of assailing me personally with such tenacity?

                  George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

                  by snafubar on Sun May 09, 2010 at 11:04:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Huh? This is on the rec list? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Here is the difference.

    A barrel exported receives money. A barrel imported costs money. Money is like an IOU. Sell oil get an IOU, buy oil, give one away. That's why the trade deficit is so high, because on NET, more oil is bought than sold.

    Of course oil is fungible. For example Canada exports oil to the US midwest but imports some through the US East.

    I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong- Feynman

    by taonow on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:50:58 PM PDT

  •  is it worse to spill oil or burn it ? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    how does the damage by the gulf oil spill compared to its effects of its being burned ?

    going thru the history of oils spills tonight on the maddow show, she made me think about what would happen if all that oil actually got to its final destination and thusly used in combustion engines and burned?  would that be better or worse relative to its being spilled?

  •  this is an important point (5+ / 0-)

    but even more important is that you or anyone find its a stunning bit of information.  Again, citizens are not provided with facts in the media, and most simply just don't know enough to find out the facts.

    These oil companies are multi-nationals with no loyalty to the country in which they are registered.  Whatever the market will bear and to the market willing to pay the most.  They'd starve the US of oil if China offered to pay twice as much.

    •  i think i agree, but also (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that there is no difference, in that respect, between multi-national corporations and national/domestic corporations; they are all entirely committed to the money (stock holders), nothing else.
      if they divert funds to doing well by doing good they're called 'non-profits'..

      •  don't be bamboozled (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        by the non-profit label either, there are plenty of operations that set up as non-profits that don't do much but increase bottom lines, assets held, and pay well to the executives that run it.  They compete in services provided by for profits, pay no shareholders and frequently are tax exempt.  They are not all charitable do-gooders by a long stretch.

        •  still better then for-profits, as far as society (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is concerned.

          •  not really (0+ / 0-)

            when you see the inner workings.  They take in huge amounts of money, don't give it away, charge fees for services just like a  for profit when everybody they took the money from thinks its going to help a cause.  They are scams.  

            Obviously there are legitimate charities and churches.  But they all aren't.  

            Many debt work out organizations are non-profits,but charge substantial fees to the people they are helping.  They make money.  The non-profit part means that they can't pay a dividend.  But they can pay large salaries, provide benefits and perks.  THe corporation pays no taxes.  Frequently these organizations are not as consumer friendly as you might think.  Recently the IRS started cracking down on them.

            Lots of other industries have similar issues right  now.

    •  sorry for being "stunned" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam, alba, roberta g, jfromga

      but as I said, I think Economic Literacy,
      is sorely lacking in America.

      (often time, I must include my self in the Uninformed column, even though, I've taken pains to get Informed on Economics, at many times.)

      the average person, doesn't stand a chance,
      most days, against those Billion dollar Corporations.

      and the Media, well, they're the other problem.

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:19:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At least you get it now (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and honestly, don't be deceived by these fuckwits who are trying to discredit that segment.  They have ulterior motives.  What they are saying aren't exactly lies.  But they don't affect the points that were made in the piece.  

  •  Olbermann/Hayes missed the point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    US drilling will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil because the amount we can hope to extract and its affect on oil prices is insignificant. I think they were trying to clear up one of the misconceptions about domestic drilling, but missed the bigger picture.

    Just found this today when I was trying to make some sense of Obama's offshore drilling plans.  From U.S. Energy Information Administration.

    The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

    Sorry to take up so much comment space, Jamess, and thanks for this diary.

  •  Couldn't you say that the other side of this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is that even if we reduce domestic consumption of oil, there will still be almost as much demand for US oil since China and India are constantly demanding more?  Maybe the political argument would be weaker, but the economic incentives to drill will still be as strong.

    That doesn't mean we shouldn't reduce consumption (obviously we should for a whole host of reasons), but just because we do doesn't mean offshore drilling is a thing of the past.

  •  Please, stop believing the meme that America (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    needs to offshore drill or otherwise its economy goes to shit.  It's a lie, and a lie that's been supported by Obama.

    If Obama doesn't reverse his decision to explore offshore drilling, he should not be reelected, in my opinion.  

    •  For real? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess, amk for obama

      Obama criticism is fine, and here he deserves criticism (although one imagines he feels pretty chastened already without it).

      But being a proponent of Palin 2012, or Romney 2012, or Huckabee 2012, or Jeb 2012 -- cause that's exactly what "If Obama doesn't reverse his decision to explore offshore drilling, he should not be reelected" means in the real, non-blog-posturing world -- is just the stupidest thing ever.

      But always a useful way for people to out themselves as myopic idiots.

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:37:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Phony diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Where is a statement about the cost of transportation?  Oil doesn't get to a destination on the other side of the world for free.

    The U.S. consumes about 25% of the world's oil production.  We'll only export oil if the cost of the oil plus the cost of shipping it is lower than alternatives.  That doesn't happen very often.  We all know that oil is being brought in from Nigeria, the Persian Gulf, and other parts of the world.  It makes no sense to import oil from the Eastern Hemisphere and ship out U.S. oil except in special circumstances.

    Crude oil is not exactly fungible.  There are different qualities of crude oil, and the refinery must have the equipment to refine that particular type of crude oil.  A refinery set up to process Arabian crude can not refine Alaskan North Slope crude without spending million$ changing their equipment.

    The North Slope oil is a different circumstance.  Some of that oil was sold to Japan, because it costs no more to ship it there than to L.A., and the West Coast refiners had about all the North Slope oil they could process without spending millions changing their processes.

    •  So, you are willing to go to the mat (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to increase the oil company's profit margins.  How sweet of you.

      •  Nothing wrong about what KLS said. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        George, jamess

        There are indeed different types of crude, and refineries can't process all types.  It's not all "black gold" like Jed Clampett found gushing out of his land.  For example, there's a type of crude produced in Utah which has the color and consistency of butterscotch topping.  The pipes have to be heated in the winter, otherwise it'll become solid.  Obviously a refinery processing that crude has to be configured differently than one that processes WTI (West Texas Intermediate.)

        And transportation costs are certainly a factor.  In the US we get the largest % of our imported crude from Canada, followed by Mexico, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia.

        I don't get SW's snotty response to KLS' comment.  No, all crude is not the same, but the original diarist's point is still valid; if we produce more crude here, maybe we use it here, and replace some of what we import from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.  But their crude will still be on the market and will be sold elsewhere.  Worldwide demand will still drive the market; and we don't have enough production coming online, even if we increase offshore drilling, to make much of a dent in our import needs.

    •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      As of 2008, the US was exporting 1.8 million barrels a day, not of crude oil, but refined petroleum products, products that came out of refineries.  Why?  Because it is cheaper to import the same products from Europe, including transportation costs.

      This reinforces the idea that oil is a global product and drilling and refining in this country, despite what the right says, is not about trying to be independent of "foreign" oil.  As the diary said, oil is a global commodity and trying to somehow potray domestic drilling as a bid for energy independence is false.  It's just another money maker for big oil.

  •  It's not hogwash. (0+ / 0-)

    If you're expecting a war in the middle east that might disrupt supplies moving through the Persian Gulf.

    You are confusing economics with military strategy.

    By the way, can I say something: "The British are here! The British are here!" (British Petroleum, that is.)

    •  lol (0+ / 0-)

      better put out those beacons.

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:31:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are right, they are two separate issues (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess, Knarfc

      price and access.  We should not conflate the two.  Any disruption to the supplies moving through the Persian Gulf will affect the world market and hence prices here as well as everywhere else.  And if that disruption persists to the point where global production is reduced below global demand physical shortages may appear in unlikely places.  It is a complex system.  But it is true that if you consider the gulf to be vulnerable then obviously not relying on Gulf oil might shield you from the affects of short term physical shortages.  However, this is really not what motivates the vast majority of folks who have been duped into thinking that increased domestic drilling is a road to lower or more stable gasoline prices.  This is simply not true.  

  •  Let's piss on the poor people of the world... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SW, sclminc, jamess, amk for obama

    by taking oil from them and letting their beaches and jungles get polluted.  But god forbid our beaches and shorelines are polluted to get the oil.

    The fact that this oil is fungible -- or may go the the world market --  doesn't change the basic facts for me.  We in the US consume, what, 25% of the world's oil?  It doesn't really ring true for me that it's okay for us to get oil from places where polluting the natural environment is more "acceptable," but it's somehow a big problem if our beaches are the ones that get polluted. A lot more of the world's oil comes to us than goes the opposite direction.

    What we need to do is reduce dependence on oil.  

    •  great bottomline (0+ / 0-)

      What we need to do is reduce dependence on oil.

      fungibility is just the "wake up call".

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:34:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's a great point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It is just bringing the horror home.

    •  The good thing about keeping drilling and (0+ / 0-)

      other dirty/potentially dirty activities here is that, in general, the United States is in a better position to control pollution, if it really wants to, than a really poor country.

      If we deal with pollution by having a process done in Vietnam, where we assume that no one will actually enforce whatever environmental laws exist, then that's as bad as if we created the pollution here in the United States.

  •  nigeria is a case study in how (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, squarewheel, amk for obama

    little the oil companies care about the nation in which they operate.

    every continent on the globe has been negatively impacted by the oil industry. it's a modern day fucking Mordor.

    witness the GOPRANOS.. rethugs: "If they fuck with me or Shaha, I have enough on them to fuck them too." -Paul Wolfowitz, quoted by the UK's Guardian

    by change the Be on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:53:30 PM PDT

  •  The U.S.A. is still "the one" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We still are the largest users of oil, whether it be from domestic or foreign sources. And we still need to reduce our dependence on oil. And, IMO, coal.

    I've never been an "enviromentalist," but I do try to think logically. And I'm thinking that, when there is abundant wind and solar power available, why on earth are we still using these fossil fuels? We just need to get our priorities and resources together. I mean, how can you use too much wind or sun power?

  •  Here's a Bumper Sticker: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ImpeachKingBushII, jamess

    British Petroleum! I think that means we don't own it.

    If you hate government, don't run for office.

    by Bensdad on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:03:13 PM PDT

  •  Oil's on its way to Europe...the hard way. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Time to stock up on fish...for thirty years or more. Forunately, the dead will sink to the bottom of the oceans.

    They only call it class war when we fight back! h/t: buhdydharma The work goes on....

    by ezdidit on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:27:07 PM PDT

  •  nobody here should be "stunned"... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess is long-held common knowledge for anyone that reads/posts the many diaries written by certified financial economists and other experts in the field here at dkos, that all the oil discovered anywhere in the world eventually makes its way to the world oil futures market, where it is up for bid in the open market and sold to the highest bidder.

    What's really "stunning" to me is that we continually let the repubs succeed with their uninformed talking points, especially the one that erroneously claims that the oil we "drill baby drill" for here is going directly to our own domestic refineries and our gas pumps down the street, when nothing could be further from reality. This is categorically untrue and a false meme. I've stated this here so many times myself until I'm blue in the face. There is no such animal as "domestic oil" anymore than there is such a thing as "clean coal".

    I'm glad that Chris Hayes from the Nation, finally got the memo, but had he bothered to take the time to read this international blog, he would've seen the light a whole lot sooner.

    This is exactly why I always say dkos is 2nd to none, because it stays on the cutting edge of top-notch journalistic-caliber for its credibility and integrity, and why I rely on it and the international newswires when I must have the unfiltered truth right now-not second hand, and the real facts as opposed to, and absent from the US corporate-owned media-slanted republican propaganda our msm passes out for facts.

    "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Wed May 05, 2010 at 01:29:53 AM PDT

  •  Did anyone NOT know this? (0+ / 0-)

    Seriously, how could you know anything about anything and not know that oil is a global commodity?

  •  Surely, the gulf oil spill is great news.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ....for some hedge fund manager somewhere.

    We'd have been better off if Party of "No" hadn't acted like a ball and chain.

    by dehrha02 on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:08:50 AM PDT

  •  How is it "ours?" (0+ / 0-)

    Who's "us," here?

    Does he mean, "multinational corporations take our oil and sell it at a profit to people who aren't us?"

    Is that what he means?

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:34:35 AM PDT

  •  Nat Now...Nat Now...Nat Now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    while they yell Drill baby drill, we should be yellin' Nat now, Nat Now, Nat now.
    There are industries that should be nationalized.  Airlines ( we already subsidize
    to the point that we own them anyway) Insurance ( Will BP's insurer really pay off on this spill?, or will it land up in the taxpayer's lap again?) and Oil, for the reasons pointed out here.
     I've always thought the second reason for going to war ( to end our dependance on foreign oil) was as stupid as the first (weapons of mass destruction).  You can't argue with stupidity though, there's no where to start.

    "Bad Bruise before dishonor"

    by tRueffert on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:38:32 AM PDT

  •  Good point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and the number one reason I have fought drilling in ANWR.  While proponents of opening ANWR also claim it is to "reduce our dependence on foreign oil", a large part of the oil that currently comes from the north slopes is sold on the open market to Japan and other countries because it is more profitable than shipping it to refineries here.  As I understand it most of ours are better designed to refine crude from the Mideast.

  •  The EIA Projection for Oil Prices (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I notedthis EIA projection during the Presidential campaign:

    The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

  •  Umm (0+ / 0-)

    We import nine million barrels of crude a day, and export thirty thousand. Yes, in theory fungible oil could be sold anywhere, but simple economics says that it doesn't make much sense to incur shipping costs to another country if you are already in the biggest market.

  •  Thanks all for the lively disucssion (0+ / 0-)

    Tomorrows topic:

    Futures Exchange warns: That $100 Oil = $4 a gallon Gasoline

    Guess what, they are World Exchanges,
    which effectively set the Price of Oil.

    Who knew?

    The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

    by jamess on Wed May 05, 2010 at 04:42:06 PM PDT

    •  No surprise to me. (0+ / 0-)

      Once they have those leases, it's not "our" oil, it's Oil Corporation oil. And they export it as they please ... and they do! See "Petroleum Prevarication"

      The U.S. exports about 11% as much petroleum as it imports AND that the U.S. is exporting 25% more  ($2.9B), measured in chain-weighted dollars, in 2007 than in 2005. By the same measure, imports fell from 2005 to 2007 by 3.8% ($5.4B).

      Want to increase the supply of oil in the U.S.? Try passing a law saying they can't export it and watch the Republican "drill baby drill" crowd scream bloody murder.

JekyllnHyde, Ed in Montana, cdreid, buffalo soldier, Terri, dwellscho, RF, miriam, Mogolori, Phoenix Woman, hester, murphy, gogol, Geenius at Wrok, nicolemm, mattman, DebtorsPrison, tommurphy, Shockwave, Fishgrease, Heather in SFBay, billlaurelMD, tacet, baffled, hyperstation, ericy, OLinda, LynnS, Mnemosyne, xynz, frisco, lesliet, SallyCat, Matilda, object16, Heart of the Rockies, undersiege, eyeswideopen, opinionated, EvieCZ, TheMomCat, bronte17, conchita, sponson, Cassandra77, understandinglife, MD patriot, Agathena, ask, Glic, scamp, vmibran, Aquarius40, pedrito, someRaven, redux, Torta, PeteZerria, librarianman, Terre, ctsteve, splashy, antirove, sele, wader, Texknight, NMRed, Braindead, tidalwave1, scorpiorising, Getreal1246, psnyder, mrkvica, alivingston, gerrilea, cosette, On The Bus, chachabowl, chickeee, raster44, papercut, Timbuk3, forrest, Pohjola, barbwires, dkmich, Oaktown Girl, AllisonInSeattle, zerelda, Curt Matlock, Vicky, JayDean, vacantlook, murrayewv, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, skippythebox, madaprn, chumley, marina, radarlady, Tinfoil Hat, Kewalo, SherwoodB, mjd in florida, arnott, Superpole, grimjc, ccasas, Omir the Storyteller, panicbean, CO, DocGonzo, eightlivesleft, stagemom, Brooke In Seattle, Laurence Lewis, reflectionsv37, Mz Kleen, GUGA, SaraBeth, Pam from Calif, truebeliever, Sara R, jimreyn, where4art, Burned, Kayakbiker, gerardbellavita, Eric K, Shotput8, EeDan, northanger, Cory Bantic, Rogneid, SocioSam, mightymouse, Alan Arizona, kathny, redcedar, mcronan, tarheelblue, Debbie in ME, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, tobendaro, Gorette, koNko, mystery2me, PlanetTreasures, luckydog, slampros, hideinplainsight, TalkieToaster, tecampbell, A Siegel, gpoutney, Glorfindel, gooderservice, imabluemerkin, Doctor Frog, Sagebrush Bob, happy camper, Preston S, boatsie, snafubar, ER Doc, dirtfarmer, middleagedhousewife, 5x5, CA Nana, profh, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, blueoregon, kurt, Eikyu Saha, Hedwig, mariachi mama, andrewj54, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, bigchin, One Pissed Off Liberal, Noor B, lightfoot, bluicebank, goheelsgodems, wa ma, byDesign, DocbytheBay, momoaizo, Margfh, suburi, FishOutofWater, Matt Z, ezdidit, mommyof3, DWG, newpioneer, gatorbot, RosyFinch, Desbrisay, Canyon Lefty, jayden, Midwesterners, vbdietz, Uberbah, SeaTurtle, Bridge Master, Progressive Chick, ImpeachKingBushII, JML9999, midwestblue, GANJA, Dem in the heart of Texas, JayC, mconvente, jack 1966, lisastar, Scioto, JeffW, scooter in brooklyn, OleHippieChick, dadadata, elwior, theunreasonableHUman, VL Baker, Cassandra Waites, bluesheep, Jeff Y, mnguy66, mofembot, Seamus D, S C B, change the Be, Ann Marie Brenda, eddienutzak, allie123, Executive Odor, Guadalupe59, ErinW43, ekyprogressive, Ellinorianne, Mike Taylor, watercarrier4diogenes, Diogenes2008, squarewheel, fayea, maggiejean, 1BQ, multilee, pileta, DontTaseMeBro, Searching for Pericles, bushondrugs, DeepLooker, ARS, litoralis, RNinOR, greengemini, LinSea, bsmechanic, Carol in San Antonio, Nebraskablue, Partisan Progressive, PackLeader89, bigmikek7, Yalin, DefendOurConstitution, worldly1, obiterdictum, allep10, Shelley99, IreGyre, sfarkash, rubthorn, MizKit, futureliveshere, davespicer, deviant24x, cricket456, confitesprit, Tx LIberal, Save the clock tower, patrickz, veracityus, LaughingPlanet, skeezixwolfnagle, brunoboy, Susan Grigsby, amk for obama, kjoftherock, biggiefries, ATFILLINOIS, wbramh, October Koan, calichristi, Nurse Jeckell, prestochango, gulfgal98, Lady Libertine, elginblt, Hoopgreen, juturna, Kristina40, Unenergy, roystah, elengul, kenwards, ericlewis0, TigerStar337, washdcnow, fiercefilms, soaglow, Eric0125, Colorado is the Shiznit, ebbet, mama jo, bluebluelady, bgbrad, nicethugbert, croyal, Kharafina, AuroraDawn, poorbuster, BlueJessamine, the national gadfly, QuestionAuthority, Sand Hill Crane, Midknight, deeproots, Late Spring, thethinveil, JGMT, marleycat, Cinnamon Rollover, tier1express, createpeace, MinistryOfTruth, VTCC73, Wom Bat, daveusf, MattYellingAtTheMoon, blackjackal, DRo, Regina in a Sears Kit House, MichaelNY, Davui, left over flower child, lightshine, pantherq, jacey, wolfie1818, KiB, StonyB, FireBird1, Hookah, damfino, DM4, passionateprotagonist, AnnieR, misterbluesky, SocialRazor

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site